Global Warming BS or not BS!!

PS: Read it only when you have time to kill!

Chris Ahn called me to help her Spanish Homework! One of the questions is ....What do you think about Global Warming??

My neighbour's son who are in Grade 11 is doing Global Warming thingi. His mother called me up for her son to talk with Robins about Global Warming for his homework too.

People who I met most of them think Global Warming is "HUGE" AND it is in "DANGER" for our next generation. The problem is no one can't tell me that in which year is going to be the real dangerous to us.

Me, myself do not think Global Warming is HUGE at all. Robins said I am very ignorance! OK I want to say, "How true is he to tell me that I am ignorance???" Now after reading about Global warming I can say some.

41% believe that Global Warming is Ooooooh and Ahaaass for them. 46% think Global Warming is a huge BS!! The rest 10 ++ % is in mute and I would call they are the muters. I am afraid I have to say I am in that BS group folks. Let me say furthermore....

I do believe in that save the energy though....like electricity. The best result for it is saving my money, to pay the bills. How much and how true it is impact on Global warming is......I am still very confuse on that.

The best evidence for global warming is that the average global temp has went up 1 degree in a hundred years. Wow. Huge right?? One of the College boy say the following. I found it in my reading from Internet!!

He said: "The problem here is, so many people are saying the Earth is warming up a lot faster than it should be. but the last time i checked, none of us are old enough to look back on the history of the Earth and compare this warm period with another. plus the world hasn't always been like it is. we all know it started off as a giant fireball. so the Earth will not stay like this forever, it is forever changing, whether we have anything to do with it or not.have fun enjoy life and go the bombers." This make me smile!! Well he has his own research I think.

Ok this is my hope and wish...those who are doing this research, hope not you are using my tax money. You better spend Al Gore's money to do this research and my last wish, hope you found the answer with good evidents.

The article below was from "My Politics Page"!!...Enjoy!

Global Warming, My Ass.(aka: The Sheep Will Believe Anything pt 1)

Go Back ToMy Politics Page
Now, let's go to Envirotruth.org. Hey, this also looks pretty legit! It's got "enviro," which is a part of "environment," and "truth!" We're going to look at an article about whether or not our current "major climatic changes" are the product of us evil humans.

Here were a few interesting points they had to offer:

The hottest summers of the 20th century in Canada were during the dust bowl years of the 1920s and the 1930s, not the 1990's, as many Kyoto supporters claim (the deadliest heat wave in Canada occurred in July, 1936, when the temperature in Toronto hit 41ºC three days in a row, killing more than 1,000 people in the Prairies and Southern Ontario).

Humanity's emission of CO2 is but a tiny fraction of that emitted by the ocean, forest fires, volcanoes and decaying vegetation.

Not a single paper based on actual observations, and not on speculation through computer models, out of the hundreds of manuscripts that passed through the editor's desk in the past several years ever claimed that global warming has anything to do with extreme weather events.

Another global warming website; clearlight.com, offers this information on the topic:
Unfortunately, a lot of disinformation about where Earth's climate is heading is being propagated by "scientists" who use improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer models to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the significance of man-made influences to Earth's climate.

The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years ago -- long before human's invented industrial pollution.

CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks.

The case for a "greenhouse problem" is made by environmentalists, news anchormen , and special interests who make inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change. Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often.

Finally...let's look at the official website of the movie, "An Inconvienient Truth"
Well, there's definitely a lot of doom on it. Ominous music, and scary graphics of hurricanes coming out of smokestacks. There's a page called "the science" that I assumed would offer me facts and figures. Unfortunately, the following pretty much sums up the entire page:

The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.

What's missing? Well, for starters, who are these scientists? What are their credentials? Where are the figures? The historical data? The proof? It seems that it's all based on notion, premonition, and guesswork. Obviously, they had their computer models, but computer models can be loaded with biased data. Simulations can easily produce whatever data their creators want, regardless of "fact." Notice the information I've provided from the other websites. They have percentages, timelines, names etc. The website for the movie has absolutely none of these things.

Another thing to take into consideration is our star, the Sun.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

So, basically, "global warming" might actually exist, and I've hardly made a case to discredit it. However, to blame global warming on human beings, is preposterous. Creating "greener" products is obviously a favorable notion for us to take, but to say that we must create these products in order to "save the human race" is flat-out irresponsible for anyone to claim.

Oh...and here's a few facts on Al "I'm Your Salvation" Gore...

* Near Al Gore's Carthage, Tennessee farm, he bought into a zinc mine, and created quite the toxic waste dump, in the process. According to the Washington Times, pesticide dumpings alone could have netted Gore $25,000 in EPA fines (since he was a democrat, I assume they conveniently looked the other way)

* In "An Inconvienient Truth," Gore refers to his role negotiating the Kyoto global warming pact in 1997. He does not mention that 95 senators, including John Kerry, had voted for a resolution that announced the Senate would reject any treaty that exempted developing nations -- but Gore agreed to exempt them anyway. So Clinton never dared to ask the Senate to ratify it.

* Average automobile fuel-efficiency hit a 19-year low under Clinton/Gore -- it was worse than under Ronald Reagan. President Bush has raised fuel standards more than Clinton/Gore. But Gore wants to clown the man who beat him (legitimately) in 2000. So he shows his audience one of his trademark charts, this one comparing U.S. automobile fuel efficiency with other countries. Interestingly...the chart begins in the year 2002. Why? Well, because it has to, for Al. You see, Bush performed better than Clinton/Gore.

Al Gore...just go the fuck away. Quit acting like Jesus, because it's bad enough that Bono thinks he's Jesus, we don't need two saviors.

It's Sunday, and the Disaster..err..Discovery Channel, is once again doing its part to scare the living shit out of its viewers. Tonight, it's tsunamis and vocanoes. A veritable overload of sights and sounds of death, destruction, and all around human tragedy. It's actually sickening, how they exploit this kind of shit, for ratings.

It's ok, though...the sheep of our society are addicted by the fascination of human tragedy. They can't help it. Death, specifically, is more marketable in our society, than anything else, we consume with our senses. We can't get enough of it. The Sheep are so enthralled by death, that they'll even follow stories in the news that give them false hopes for death. They know more about Natalee Holloway than they do about any of their state's elected officials. They read news articles on every missing person. They sit, glued to their televisions, watching scenes of carnage from Hurricane Katrina, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and various other natural disasters.

But there's a problem with this. For every deer that's caught in the headlights, there's the driver behind the headlights who has the deer exactly where they want it.

Thus is the premise of this piece.
Recently, Al Gore, produced the movie "An Inconvienient Truth," that supposedly gives overwhelming and concrete evidence that humans are, in fact, completely to blame for Earth's ecological and climatical changes. It gives the premise that, if we don't kiss Al's ass, and do everything he says we should do, then mankind will cease as we know it.

And...right on cue...the media immediately jumped in and started sucking his dick.

Dennis Harvey of Variety.com says the movie is "an excellent educational tool." Amy Biancolli of the Houston Chronical, calls this "a film that invests hard science." (we'll excuse her..she's Texan, so that immediately discredits her) David Edelson of the New York Magazine says "it's one of the most realistic documentaries he's ever seen." Hell, almost 90% of the reviews that RottenTomatoes.com offers, completely idolize Al Gore, and his "scientific" movie.

But what exactly is the deal with "global warming?"
The hippies would love for you to believe that everything man-made, in the past 200 years, is directly (and adversely) related to global warming. I guess they believe that society is evil, and we should devolve back to how it was in medieval times. Perhaps we should just cast off all our worldly possessions (except maybe a bong and a guitar) and just live in grass huts, naked, eating berries.
But let's not think about Al Gore's 90-minute self-deifying political commercial, and let's look elsewhere for "the truth."

First, lets look at globalwarming.org. Sounds legit enough, right? I mean...it's name IS "global warming." Here is how they tackle the tough questions...
Is global warming occurring?

Although some computer models predict warming in the next century, these models are very limited. The effects of cloud formations, precipitation, the role of the oceans, or the sun, are still not well known and often inadequately represented in the climate models --- although all play a major role in determining our climate. Scientists who work on these models are quick to point out that they are far from perfect representations of reality, and are probably not advanced enough for direct use in policy implementation. Interestingly, as the computer climate models have become more sophisticated in recent years, the predicted increase in temperature has been lowered.
Are humans causing the climate to change?

98% of total global greenhouse gas emissions are natural (mostly water vapor); only 2% are from man-made sources. By most accounts, man-made emissions have had no more than a minuscule impact on the climate. Although the climate has warmed slightly in the last 100 years, 70% percent of that warming occurred prior to 1940, before the upsurge in greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes.

If global warming occurs, will it be harmful?

The idea that global warming would melt the ice caps and flood coastal cities seems to be mere science fiction. A slight increase in temperature -- whether natural or mankind induced -- is not likely to lead to a massive melting of the earth ice caps, as sometimes claimed in the media. Larger quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer climates would likely lead to an increase in vegetation. During warm periods in history, vegetation flourished, at one point allowing the Vikings to farm in now frozen Greenland.
Interesting, don't you think?